Free speech means allowing hate speech

This is another really good article written by a OSU Student. Damn, I may have to change my opinion about you beavers

by Elizabeth Meyer

As it turns out, freedom of speech in the West isn’t as free as we thought. David Irving, an Austrian historian, has been jailed for denying that the Holocaust took place, or, more accurately, saying that it really wasn’t all that bad. Perhaps I should be nervous that more and more, as the cartoon riots sweep the Middle East and as Irving is jailed, I’m finding myself on the same side of arguments as some other Barometer columnists and a historian denying the Holocaust. The two men argue very different things, neither of which I ever thought I would agree with.
But the thing about believing in freedom of speech is that you have to believe in freedom of speech. That means repugnant speech. That means speech that makes your blood boil. Speech against your own sacred cows. Austria’s jailing of Irving has proven many Muslim scholars correct — we have a double standard in the West. Freedom of speech means freedom to offend ... until you cross the line. For many, that line should be hate speech.
Only by allowing hate speech and other objectionable expressions can we truly create an atmosphere of equality. If we simply deny the rights of those that offend us, we lose the opportunity to combat the racism, sexism, heterosexism, or other hate that creates that speech.
The first problem faced by the attempt to regulate hate speech is defining it. Hate speech is not hate crimes, or other criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that illegal conduct is illegal, even if it contains speech. Chief Justice Warren wrote that the Court did not “accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” Harassment, trespass, vandalism, and violent crime are all still illegal, regardless of whatever message the perpetrator may be trying to spread. Hate speech, in the context of this paper, is only the act of speech itself.
Narrowing the definition of hate speech to only include speech, however, does not narrow it very much. The American Heritage Dictionary states that hate speech is “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” Even with this seemingly straightforward definition, hate speech is anything but clear cut. For example, what is “bigoted” and what constitutes a “social or ethnic group” and what is “disparaging?” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its position paper on campus speech codes, argues that many college campuses have taken the definition of disparaging to the extreme, defining it as any offensive speech to a group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
This is problematic because it is so broad. Sensitivities vary. What one woman considers a good-natured joke may be seen as sexual harassment —and thus hate speech — by another. While neither woman is necessarily incorrect in her assessment of the comment, the speaker cannot know how the women will take the joke and may face disciplinary action.
If we look specifically to campuses, we see where hate speech, when not well defined, can be used to silence students. Universities argue that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens, means that they must allow access to all. Hate speech on campus denies this equal protection, they argue, by creating a hostile environment toward some, thus denying them equal access. But when these two values come into conflict, the school ought to err on the side of free speech.
The purpose of any university is to educate. Public universities exist because our states have found it in their interest to educate the population. No college freshman can start school without hearing “these years will change you” at least once, and few college seniors can disagree. Universities aim to educate beyond the classroom. Evidence of this at Oregon State can be seen in the Educational Activities funding for student-run activities ranging from a debate team to cultural nights, the five resource and cultural centers and in events such as Convocations and Lectures. Members of the ACLU argue that by allowing hate speech on campus, universities create another opportunity for education: for the targeted students, the speaker and other students on campus.
Opponents of hate speech bans such as the ACLU state that rather than issue a blanket ban, allowing hate speech gives students who would see themselves as victims the chance to become activists and reformers.
This doesn’t mean that hate speech must go unnoticed by universities. The universities can respond by holding forums, condemning such speech (but still allowing it) and providing support to student groups attempting to educate the campus about such issues. An atmosphere where the university just ignores it can easily be closed to minorities and women. But by simply banning it, the university pushes the problem under the rug only to have it rear its ugly head later, once the bigots are finished with school.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis argues, “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” Our society has decided that for a functioning democracy, we must be able to evaluate ideas on our own. Yet if a university shields its students from offensive speech, the targeted students will never learn to defend themselves and the offensive students will not have their views directly challenged.
Hate speech is still a problem, not just on college campuses, but around the country and, in fact, the world. Still, it is almost impossible to define, and banning it in some places and instances but not others creates unfairness and bias. It is a far better world in which we combat racism head on, proving the ideas behind it wrong, rather than simply running from it. Putting David Irving in prison won’t convince him or his followers that they’re wrong. If anything, it will make them more sure in their convictions. Allow him and all others to spew their hate, because I’m willing to bet that if we let them talk, most people will hear them for the idiots they are.